"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." ~ Vance Packard

The Trials

To anyone who has seen or readThe Reader (a synopsis of the relevant part of the story is here), one of the main questions raised in the story is, "What should be done with Hanna?"

Was she responsible for her actions even if she was so thoroughly indoctrinated so as to be completely confused by the charges against her? She asked more than once, while seemingly lost in the maze of what to her were purely Kafkaesque proceedings, "What would you have done?"

And for the majority of folks who answer “Well, I certainly wouldn’t have done that,” the results of Stanley Milgram’s experiments may suggest otherwise.

So was she a reasoning adult who had simply voluntarily participated in an inhumane profession? Or was she a person who was from the very beginning of her life taught that the most important thing she could do was to follow orders because without a strict hierarchical organization, society would crumble, and this was in fact the social norm in which she was immersed all her life? In other words, was she actually competent to stand trial?

People now look back and shake their heads, unable to understand how such a mindset could ever have taken hold on such a grand scale. Could it seem incomprehensible today because children are now raised to respect human life at least to the extent that "just doing my job" is understood to be insufficient justification for guarding a locked door that keeps a group of arbitrarily-chosen people imprisoned until they can be systematically killed?

Yes, at least society has progressed now to the point to where the people who have jobs guarding locked doors that keep arbitrarily-chosen non-aggressing "criminals" imprisoned do so only until the “rule-breakers” can be released back into society after paying their "debts." And at least the systematic killing of arbitrarily-chosen people now proceeds from afar, with buttons, joysticks, and explosive robotic delivery systems.

<sarcasm> In other words, we have become waaaay more civilized since then. </sarcasm> But the actual point is, it is the indoctrination that children are exposed to that creates these ethical blind spots that persist into adulthood and are guaranteed to be exploited by the sociopathic elements in society.

Imagine today an IRS agent or a drone operator in the dock instead of Hanna. Wouldn't they be absolutely adrift on a Kafkaesque sea concerning any ethical charges leveled against them? It was legal! It was my job! I would have been fired! I had to feed my kids! I was doing it for the good of society! What in the hell are you talking about? Why am I even here?

Well, the plain fact of the matter is that when a generation of children is indoctrinated with a set of ideas that creates in their minds external authorities that operate for the good and for the necessity of everyone, and societal norms (the actions of the adults who previously received the same indoctrination as children) reinforce those ideas, then that society is statistically guaranteed that at least a fair percentage of those children will grow up to become the unsuspecting tools of sociopaths. And these naïve adults will actually believe very strongly that they are performing vital services for the good of society, when in fact they are achieving the exact opposite.

Eventually, after everything goes so horribly wrong that the entire evil system collapses, then it is oh, so easy to place those naïfs into the dock and ask them, What is so hard to understand, K., about the fact that you willingly participated in harming or killing people merely because someone told you to do it? How can you not understand that it is wrong to do that? What in the world could you possibly have for an excuse?

The main difference between now and then seems to be that today’s sociopaths who claim the powers of external authority have learned to put more distance between the bureaucratic employees and those who are to be assaulted and executed by them. It becomes more difficult to correlate the modern button-pushers with the traditional key-holders, and any attempt to do so is greeted with reflexive shouts of "Godwin's Law, you lose!" Here is a rebuttal that signals the end of rational thought and conversation, because any proposed correlation between a DEA agent’s armed raid on a home where there are “suspected drug users” and a Nazi concentration camp guard is pure hyperbole.

But it is not hyperbole to suggest that the indoctrination of children to obey external authority is ultimately the enabler of all the evils that occur on the grandest of scales. This is the correlating factor that ties together the full gamut of State-sanctioned abuses that range from petty theft to murder. Sure, if children are taught that things like holocausts are bad, then they can identify and understand such unethical events and condemn them. But this is not nearly enough. In fact, it does not even begin to eliminate the root from which spouts the plethora of varied abuses and pogroms available to the enterprising sociopath.

Problem: Killing six million people systematically in camps is called "holocaust" and is unacceptable. Solution: Kill millions systematically but at a distance and over a greater period of time and it is no longer labeled "holocaust."

Indoctrinate children to obey external authority, and the sociopaths will develop a myriad of ways to use those children after they become adults to destroy the lives of others in socially-acceptable manners. Later blaming the brainwashed dupes must make the sociopaths chuckle indeed as they themselves actually preside over and judge the hapless plebes who appear before them in the docks.

The trials are merely a cue to the sociopaths that a new system must be invented, because society no longer will accept this particular form of slaughter because they actually caught a glimpse of the insides of one of the abattoirs. Jesus, destroy that monstrous thing!

Sure, say the sociopaths. Done and done. That particular facility is now offline, so don't let the thought of it trouble you ever again. Come now, and let us begin toNever Forget™.

Putting bewildered pawns on trial after the inevitable next carnage is not the solution, as evidenced by the long list of avowed Never Agains that keep repeating themselves again and again. Only when the atrocities are accurately identified for what they are—manifestations of the belief in external authority that must be obeyed—and only after the rejection of that false doctrine occurs, will that ancient root of superstition finally be severed.

In the meantime, as the world waits for that day to arrive, well-meaning people continue to act in ways that will ultimately make their grandchildren shake their heads with sad wonder at how barbaric the world was way back at the beginning of the 21st Century.

Comments

Who was Hitler’s external authority? How about Stalin’s? Charles Manson’s? These three weren't mere enablers of evil; they perpetrated it on a grand scale. Their parents must have indoctrinated them to obey some external authority, no?

What’s that? Sometimes evil does its own thing? So maybe cultivating your own inner authority doesn’t turn out so hot either, eh?

“No one has the right to trespass against another’s person or property. Ever.” This principle sounds reasonable enough to me. As a Catholic, I find it surprisingly compatible with my obscurantist morality. Perhaps in this case my parents' indoctrination to obey “external authority”—the Old and New Testament writers, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and the hierarchy of the Church--didn't turn out so bad?

Then again, perhaps an external authority freely embraced becomes an internal authority? As far as I can tell, *it is internal*. The Pope has never threatened to sic his Switzers on me.

The Randoids seem to endorse some version of the Non-Aggression Principle. What, then, do we do with their views on warfare? They insist a “civilized” nation has the right--nay, the *duty*--to perpetrate wholesale civilian slaughter on an "uncivilized" nation. It all sounds rather uncivilized to me, but what do I know? My ethical system isn’t rational and objective like theirs.

Whom did the Randoids' parents indoctrinate them to obey? And how is I turned out so much more peace-loving than they?

The late Christopher Hitchens issued screeds perpetuating black legends linking Christianity to violence. Ironically enough, he proved an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War, even as the last two popes condemned it. How do we explain the conundrum? Perhaps Hitchens' parents indoctrinated him to obey secular "liberal" democracy to keep the forces of Islamic darkness at bay?

Or maybe "external authority" and parental "indoctrination" have nothing to do with it. Maybe it's all about human choice, action and volition. Maybe evil results when people become overly attached to their version of the Greater Good, however defined, and start trading the rules of common human decency in the interests of expediency.

My take is that evil can happen when a person acquires power over others; a condition that is necessary though not sufficient. Might you go along with that?

As heads of the Roman Church, popes arranged the torture and execution of dissidents. They had the power, and they had the motive - to put down serious threats to their authority and to the organization in which they earnestly believed.

So of course did their Protestant counterparts, when a similar need was perceived.

Hitler, Stalin etc had obscene amounts of power, and likewise used it to advance causes in which they earnestly believed - the destiny and glory of a great nation, the removal of centuries of oppression of peasants, etc. Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, but his boyhood was probably influenced more by the drunken cruelty of his father; but both correlations are weak.

The Milgram experimenters were handed authority to hurt, and told to do it in the interest of science.

Hitchens as you'll know was very much a work in progress; he'd moved from Marxism towards the Neocons, but had not yet grasped that all collective, political action is a snare and delusion. Rand, too, was only part way there; she denounced collectivism yet endorsed a minimal government. Had Hitchens had a few more years, I reckon he was smart and open minded enough to see the contradiction.

The common thread seems to me to be the possession of power, plus a reason to use it. Like you, I'm not clear that the presence of an "external authority" is a prerequisite for evil to happen; that's only one of several ways of acquiring those two factors. Are we in sync?

"My take is that evil can happen when a person acquires power over others..." ~ Jim Davies

"Can happen", and "cause to happen" are two entirely different things. Does power actually corrupt, or does power attract the corrupt/corruptible, and so only appears to corrupt? Virtually all of us have "power" over someone, but does that power always lead to evil deeds? I'd like to think, not.

I think "power corrupts" pretty much is a rule (Rothbard noted some examples in his American history, of proto-libertarians who later gained power, like Roger Williams). That we do not always use it to evil ends in our personal lives just means that it would be counter to our interests to do so. But things like familial restraints hardly exist out in society. There may be variations in corruptibility, but I wouldn't like seeing even the most decent and trustworthy anarchist in power above me.

Who was Hitler’s external authority? How about Stalin’s? Charles Manson’s? These three weren't mere enablers of evil; they perpetrated it on a grand scale. Their parents must have indoctrinated them to obey some external authority, no?

[Interesting selection of names. Notice that the first two killed quite a few more than the last guy. The reason they did was that they were able to convince a great number of otherwise good people to participate. These are the people I am writing about, not the power-holding guys. It should not be surprising to anyone who has any experience with human nature that when there are positions of power, then those who fill those positions will tend to abuse the power. Does the power corrupt or does the office attract corruption, or both? Interesting, but not the focus of the article. What allows a person to stand guard at a door for eight hours, and then go home, have dinner, play with the kids, and be in all other respects a perfectly fine and upstanding human being?]

What’s that? Sometimes evil does its own thing? So maybe cultivating your own inner authority doesn’t turn out so hot either, eh?

[There are rational means to determine if human action is ethical or not. Not understanding them can lead to unintentionally bad decisions. The best solution seems to be to understand the difference between ethical and unethical action. What else?]

“No one has the right to trespass against another’s person or property. Ever.” This principle sounds reasonable enough to me. As a Catholic, I find it surprisingly compatible with my obscurantist morality. Perhaps in this case my parents' indoctrination to obey “external authority”—the Old and New Testament writers, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and the hierarchy of the Church--didn't turn out so bad?

[Are you going to throw Romans at me as a justification for government? No? Then I believe you used your rational faculty to separate the good ideas, of which there are many in the Bible, from the bad ones. For every one of you, there are 100 who believe that governments are God's earthly institutions and the Caesars must be obeyed. This is pure irrationality, but if one is being indoctrinated, then it is swallowed along with all the good ideas. I would venture to guess that any good indoctrination is 90% good ideas and 10% bad, which makes everyone feel good about themselves and fail to notice the poison in the KookAid (I meant to type KoolAid, but just look at that typo!).]

Then again, perhaps an external authority freely embraced becomes an internal authority? As far as I can tell, *it is internal*. The Pope has never threatened to sic his Switzers on me.

[Obama has done nothing to attack me personally, either. Must be a good guy?]

The Randoids seem to endorse some version of the Non-Aggression Principle. What, then, do we do with their views on warfare? They insist a “civilized” nation has the right--nay, the *duty*--to perpetrate wholesale civilian slaughter on an "uncivilized" nation. It all sounds rather uncivilized to me, but what do I know? My ethical system isn’t rational and objective like theirs.

Whom did the Randoids' parents indoctrinate them to obey? And how is I turned out so much more peace-loving than they?

[You were able to use your rational faculty. So why doesn't everyone? Either it is unnatural, or the natural ability is stunted since there is such an apparent lack of it in practice. Indoctrination is the denial of the use of a rational faculty by definition, and so I consider it to be the main crippler that has resulted in what we see all around us.]

The late Christopher Hitchens issued screeds perpetuating black legends linking Christianity to violence. Ironically enough, he proved an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War, even as the last two popes condemned it. How do we explain the conundrum? Perhaps Hitchens' parents indoctrinated him to obey secular "liberal" democracy to keep the forces of Islamic darkness at bay?

Or maybe "external authority" and parental "indoctrination" have nothing to do with it. Maybe it's all about human choice, action and volition. Maybe evil results when people become overly attached to their version of the Greater Good, however defined, and start trading the rules of common human decency in the interests of expediency.

[People do not push buttons to launch drones against nonaggressing people so they can collect a paycheck. They do not calculate that killing a few children here and there is worth $20/hr. They must believe they are defending their country and friends and family against monsters. If such ideas can get into people's heads in some manner other than indoctrination and the belief in external authority, I would be eager to hear the theory. You seem to be inferring that if there were listings on Craigslist for jobs, and one job paid $10/hr. for painting and another $20/hr. for killing children, then people would flock to the latter because it obviously is a better paying job. This type of expediency over decency is not, IMO, widespread. Their version of the Greater Good is the deciding factor, and this Greater Good is usually the result of swallowing indoctrination, aka believing things without understanding the logic behind them, and the belief in external authority (Just push the button, son. That's an order. We have decided that person needs to die, so no need for you to think or question. Just push the button. Defend your children.]

Well now, I didn't realize that a discussion was a competition and that perhaps not interpreting one line out correctly of many makes for an automatic loss due to disqualification, rendering all the other points invalid. So congratulations on your victory.

I guess we need to define power first and not let it dangle out there so any kind of S**t can cling to it. I like electric power, but it does not give me the power to damage an economy. From the word "Acquire" I have to assume I have done something for someone to have been given (acquired) that power. Now the acquiring of power does not make me evil; it's what I do with that power that makes me evil. The president of the united states of america (small letters are intentional) has acquired an enormous amount of power. Does it make him evil. Despite the fact that I cannot stand the thing (king) I don't believe it makes him evil.
I believe evil is 1) inherent in the human being. All of us have the potential for evil given the right time, place and circumstances. 2) I believe in some cases is a genetic endowment. 3) I believe that children exposed to or predisposed to horrific events in their life (I think of some of the kids in African countries whom have been abducted and educated in the ways of evil. Recall the personal account of a man whom escaped the situation and what he described yes evil can be induced but obviously from this one individual it did not take, ergo he escapes to what he hopes will be a better life rather than being trained in killing maming and etc.)
In conclusion I guess Jim believes evil occurs when people acquire power over others. This is a possibility but maybe not a probability. Yes or no?

It appears that you have merely exchanged the word "occur" for the word, "happen", for your final yes-or-no-question, so the following still stands, exchange notwithstanding.

"Can occur", and "cause to occur" are two entirely different things. Does power actually corrupt, or does power attract the corrupt/corruptible, and so only appears to corrupt? Virtually all of us have "power" over someone, but does that power always lead to evil deeds? I'd like to think, not.

Tso has identified something I've always called the "Nazi Concentration Camp Guard Syndrome" - that such a guard would not think of himself as evil, but entirely the reverse. There definitely is some point in questioning a trial of such people. And then going ahead and doing it anyway...

I think one can go too far with this notion of "external authority". Mark Twain had maybe a better take on it, the need to just fit in to society:http://lewrockwell.com/orig/twain5.1.1.html
Of course the ruling class does steer societal norms to a large extent.

It seems to me that every society has a subset of people who question the norms. Milgram did not find 100% compliance rates. The real error of people like Hanna is when the worker bee ignores such questions and fits in no matter how evil things are going. At some point one has to assume that the worker bee has SOME intelligence, SOME responsibility for her actions. Maybe she is to be pitied a bit, or some empathy felt, but we shouldn't go overboard with that. I suppose one can say that Darwin is to deal with such people.

I should add, replying to my own post, that it is not a hopeless task to question societal norms. Often the norms are built on such a flimsy and transparent rationale that even a child saying "the King has no clothes" can bring the house down. So the worker bee has little excuse to not even begin to consider the questions.

This is one of the great advantages of the Internet. The worker bee has much easier access to alternate views, and a quiet place to honestly consider them. I wonder if Milgram would see any change today.

I agree with the fitting-in thing. It's status-quo economics. Time is scarce; if the end aimed at is material success then the means don't necessarily need to question the underlying premise of the situation, even if that situation is Nazi Germany. If you're an Aryan, and thus, not subject to persecution, then there is no external catalyst to impress upon you the need to question the circumstance. If your goal is success, then the best way to attain it is through the current channels of the status-quo.

I'm not apologizing for this kind of ignorance, it's just been my experience with the human race that people act on premises based on scarce information. In what ways we act is balanced between a preference for internal vs external fulfillment. Extremely internal people tend to read and think deeply and are more likely to discipline current actions towards future reward. Extremely external people tend towards immediate action-orientation and the impulsive fulfillment of current desires. One is considered kooky and anti-social; the other is considered sociopathic. Most people lie somewhere in between.

I also agree that the elite dominate the channels of wealth distribution in any era and, thus, have a large impact on what the overriding culture of success tends to look like. Since instinct for survival is much older than the development of the rational neocortex, I think status-quo success-orientation takes primacy for most people over long-term internal fulfillment.

On another note: It's a paradox of evolution that an animal with an inborn instinct for survival could develop a rationale capable of acting against his better interest for survival. For instance, no other animal can commit suicide. So there is definitely a huge margin for people to overcome their current presuppositions and orient themselves differently. I've heard that called the human factor.

I have a friend who went to the Naval Academy who told me that one of the first things they did there was to instill the importance of following orders for their own good, without question. On the first day the cadets were be shown a short video of a Navy pilot in the cockpit of a jet who was told (given the order) to "Eject!" over the radio. The pilot hesitated and the plane exploded killing the pilot. This little video was followed by a lecture on how important it is to never question orders because they were made by people who knew more about the situation than they did and, even if it didn't make sense, that they should just follow orders for their own good. After years of this type of indoctrination being reinforced by nearly everyone around them, it is easy to see how the excuse of "following orders" while committing atrocities is used. It appears that people can be "learned" to default their decision making to external authorities with regularity.
The best way to avoid this slippery slope is to not join such groups that tend to have psychopathic "leaders"; which is more easily said than done for the many already brainwashed into believing how wonderful the military is.

Greetings Mark,
What you say is true and not only for the officer corps but even more so for the enlisted. In a combat situation the truth of the relevancy of following orders is for your safety and the safety of others, it is an essential truth you must get through your head if you have any chance of survival. There are also those time when you are taught to disobey what you believe to be an illegal command. Neve hear much about those though. Just some added information, but you must take into account that it is 40 years old too. Things may have changed.

Do you believe "following orders is for your safety and the safety of others, it is an essential truth you must get through your head if you have any chance of survival", or were you saying that is what the enlisted persons are conditioned to believe?

And, were you actually "taught to disobey what you believe to be an illegal command"?

"Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the _________________."

Back in the early '70's when I was in the Marine Corps, a common expression was, "Ours not to reason why; ours but to do or die." It was always expressed sarcastically. I believe brainwashing in the military is a lot less perfect than people imagine it to be.

I also find it interesting to note how people, including Americans, so easily compartmentalize what "we" do and what "they" do, by pointing out differences in degree even when they recognize no difference in the kind of actions. For instance, the Japanese "internment" of Japanese citizens in WW II here in the good old USA. Another is the "Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" where modern day Jews, that should know better, engage in an ongoing "soft" genocide.